“A federal court in Fort Worth on Thursday struck down a Texas prohibition that limited adults under 21 from carrying handguns,” UPI reported.
Texas law bars most 18- to 20-year-olds in the state from obtaining a license to carry a handgun or carrying a handgun for self-defense outside their homes. Two plaintiffs, who fall within that age range, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge the statute. The suit says the Texas law prevented the plaintiffs from traveling with a handgun between Parker, Fannin and Grayson counties, where they lived, worked and went to school.
U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman wrote that the Second Amendment does not specify an age limit and protects adults under 21 years old.
“Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition,” Pittman wrote in the ruling.
Pittman said the Second Amendment does not impose limits on self-defense.
“To start, the Second Amendment does not mention any sort of age restriction. This absence is notable—when the Framers meant to impose age restrictions, they did so expressly,” he wrote.
Even when focusing on the term “militia,” Pittman said the Texas law violates the intent of the Founders.
“[A]t the Founding, the ‘militia’ was generally understood to be comprised of “all able-bodied men,” which included 18-to-20-year-olds, he wrote, adding, “Thus, the undisputed historical evidence establishes that 18-to-20-year-olds were understood to be a part of the militia in the Founding Era.”
Pittman’s decision referenced the Supreme Court’s June ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the court struck down a New York law that placed restrictions on carrying concealed handguns outside the home.
The order will not go into immediate effect. Pittman stayed the ruling for 30 days pending appeal.
Mark Van der Veen offers some of the most analytical and insightful writings on politics. He regularly opines on the motives and political calculations of politicians and candidates, and whether or not their strategy will work. Van der Veen offers a contrast to many on this list by sticking mainly to a fact-based style of writing that is generally combative with opposing ideologies.